Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1887-12-15
PROHIBITION SUSTAINED.
The United States Supreme Court De-
cides the Kansas Prohibition Cases
in Favor Of the State.
An Exhaustive Disposition Upon the
Right of a State to Enact and En-
force Prohibition Laws.


An Exhaustive Disposition Upon the
Right of q State to Enact and En-
force Prohibition Laws.
WASHINGTON. Dec. "a very important
decision, and one hkels to be far-reaching IN
its consequences, was rendered in the United
States supreme court to-day in the Kansas
prohibition cases of Mugler against the State
of Kansas and the State of Kansas againstZie-
bold and others The judgment Of the court
was announced in a long opinion by Justice
Harlan, who said:
The general question in each case is whether
the prohibition statutes Of Kansas are In conflict
with that clause OF the fourteenth amendment,
which provides that no state shall make OF en-
force any Law which shall abridge the priylleges
or immuni.ies OF citizens of the United states.
nor shall any state deprive any person OF HE.
liberty or property without due process OF law.
That legislation by q state prohibiting the man
ufacture within her limits Of intoxicating
liquors, TO be there sold or bartered for general
use as q beverage, does not necessarily infringe
any right, privilege or immunity secured oy the
constitution of the United States. is made clear
by the decisions OF the court rendered before
and since the adoption OF the fourteenth amend
menL. 1t is. however, contended that. althongh
the state may prohibit the manufacture OF m
toxicatine llauors for sale or barter within her
limits for general use as a beverage. no conven-
tion or legislature has the right under
our form Of government 70 p Ir bis
own use or for export or storage, any
article Of food or drink not endangerinR or
affecting the rights of others. The srgamens
made in support Of the first branch of this
proposition is: That in the implied compacts
between the state and the citizen. certain rights
are reserved by the latter which are guaranteed
by ths constitutional provisions for the pro-
lection of life, liberty and property against de-
privation without due process of Las and with
which the state cannot interfere: that an on2
these rights IL that Of manufacturing Tor one
own use either food or drink: that, while ac-
cording 10 the doctrines of the the
state may control the tastes, appstites. habits.
dress. food and drink of the citizen, our system
OF government. based upon the individuality
and intelligence of the people, does not claim TO
control him except as 70 his conduct 10 others.
Affects himself It will be observed that the
proposition and the argumeu made in support
of it equally concede that the right to manu-
facture drink for ones personal use Is subject 10
the condition that such manufacture does not
endanger or
AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
II such manufacture does prejudicially affect
the rights and interests of the IL
follows from the very premises stated by coun-
by legislation against the injurious consequences
of that business. As was said in Mum vs. ILL.,
nois (94 U. S, l2I, while power does not exist
Win the whole people 70 CDutfhl EtkHbHb hAt u
purely and exclusively private, government may
require each citizen so 70 conduct himself and
so 10 use bis own property as not unnecessarily
TO injure another. But by whom OF oy Tau
thority is IL TO be determined whether nan-
ufacture Of particular articles Of DRINK Iher
for general use or for the personal use OF the
maker, will inJuriously affect the pu5lics Power
to determine such questions so as 70 bntd all
must exist somewhere else society viii be at the
mercy Of the few who, regarding only their own
Appetites or passions, NAV be willing 70 imperi
the peace and security Of the many. provided
only they are allowed to do as they please. Under
our system that power is lodged with the legts-
lstiye branch Of the government. Ii belongs to-
that department to exert the police powers OF
the state. IL must determine primarily what
measures are appropriate or needfui for the pro-
lection Of the public morals, the public health
or the public safety. IL does not al all follow
from these principles that every statute enacted
ostensibly for the promotion of these ends Is TO
be accepted as q legitimate exerttonef the police
powers Of the state. There are OF necessity
limits beyond which legislation cannot rightly
20. As the courts must obey the constitution
rather than the law-making department OF the
government, IL must upon its responsibility de-
teTmine whether IN any particular case these
limits have been passed. The courts are not
bound by mare forms nor are they TO be misied
by mere pretenses. They are az lib~erTy-indeed
are under a solemn outy-to look at the sub
stance of things whenever thew enter upo1 the
inquiry. whether the legislature has trauscended
the limits Of its authority. II, therefore,, q
statute purporting 70 have been enacted TO pro-
80 az FARaAN AseANA 80 ANS@A
public safety, has no real OF substantial rela-
lions 10 those objects Of rights secured by the
fundamental law. 1t is the duty of the courts 20
so adjudge and thereby give effect 20 the consti-
tuition. Keeping in view these principles as
governing the relations with each other of the
judicial and legislative departments Of govern
ment 1t is
DIFFICULT TO PERCEIVE ANY GRoUND
for the judiciary to declare that the prohibition
b. Kansas Of the manufacture or sale within
her limits of Intoxicating liquors for general use
there as a beverage is not fairly adapted TO the
end of protecting the community against the
evils which coBfes-ediv result from the excess
i've use of ardent spirits There is here no jus
tifieatioa for holding that the state. under the
guise Of police regulations, is aiming TO deprive
tbs citizen Of his constitutional rights; for we
cannot shut ont Of view the fact within the
knowledge OF all. that the public health, the
public morals and the public safety may be en-
dsngered by the general use OF intoxicating
drinks Nor can We ignore the fact. established
by statistics accessible to every one. that the
disorder. psuperism and crime preyalent in the
country are in large measure directly trace2ble
to this evil IL, therefore, = state deems the abb
solute prohibition of the manufacture and sale
within her limits OF intoxicating liquors
for other than medical. scientific and
manufacturing purposes 20 be necessary TO the
peace and dignity Of society, the courts cannot,
without usurping legislative functions. override
the will of the people as thus expressed by their
chosen representatives IL Is a fundamental
principle in our institutions. indispensable to
NAC NACcS SAO w bRAJlit ~ kIht tAE VI
these departments OF government shall not
usuro powers committed by the constitution TO
another department And so. IL in the judy
nlent OF the legislature the manufacture Of in
toxicating liquors for the makers own use as a
beverage would tend 10 cripple, IL not to defeat
her efforts 10 guard the community against the
1t is not for the courts, upon their views as TO
what is best and safest for the community, TO
disregard the legislative determination Of tnat
question. So far from such a regulation beine
fKa nTrlnraara 20 Tho rZnGral and anrk 20 he
accomplished, it is easy to be seen that
the entire scheme Of prohibition, az
embodied in the constitution and laws
Of each citizen 10 manufacture intoxicating
liquors for his own use as a beverage were recog-
ni1ed such a right does not inhere in citizen
ship. Nor can't be said that tho government in
~terfe7es with or impairs any ones constitutional
rights OF liberty or Of property when 1t deter
mines that the manufacture and sale OF intoxi-
eating drinks for general or individual use as a
beverage are or may become hurtfui to society
and to every member OF il. and Is therefore a
business in which no one can lawfully engage.
This conclusion is unavoidable unless the four
from the states Of the Union those powers Of
police that were reserved at the time the orig
tnal constitution was adopted But this court
bier VS. Connolly, 1l3 U. s., 81 that the four
tenth amendment had no such effect.
THE PROPERTY OBJECTION.
Win reference TO the assertion that the
prohibition of the manufacture and sale of
liquor depriyes liquor dealers of their prop
erty without due process of law. the court
SAYS:
All property under our form OF government Is
subject to the obligation that it shall not be
used so as to injuriously affect :he rights of the
community and thereby become a nuisance,
The State Of Kansas had a right to prohibit the
liquor traffic 1t did not thereby take away the
property OF the brewers. IL simply abatei a
nuisance. The property Is not taken away from
its owners. They are only prohibited from using
1t for specific purpose, which the legislature de-
elared to be Injurious to the community. For
the reasons stated, we are OF the opinion thar
Mugler, the plaintiff in error. has not beea de-
MED by the judgments of the snDrei ue court Of
Kansas any right, privilege or immunity Sc
cured to him by the constitution OF the United
States. and its judgment in each case Is accord
tngly affirmed We are also of the opinion that
The circuit court OF the United States erred in
dismissing the bin OF the state in her suit
against Ztebold and Hagelin. The decree in
that case IS reversed and the cause remanded,
with directions to enter a decIse granting to the
state such relief as the act OF March z, 1855,
authorizes
The Centre of the United
Sf0foc